Literature DB >> 34562019

On restricted mean time in favor of treatment.

Lu Mao1.   

Abstract

The restricted mean time in favor (RMT-IF) of treatment is a nonparametric effect size for complex life history data. It is defined as the net average time the treated spend in a more favorable state than the untreated over a prespecified time window. It generalizes the familiar restricted mean survival time (RMST) from the two-state life-death model to account for intermediate stages in disease progression. The overall estimand can be additively decomposed into stage-wise effects, with the standard RMST as a component. Alternate expressions of the overall and stage-wise estimands as integrals of the marginal survival functions for a sequence of landmark transitioning events allow them to be easily estimated by plug-in Kaplan-Meier estimators. The dynamic profile of the estimated treatment effects as a function of follow-up time can be visualized using a multilayer, cone-shaped "bouquet plot." Simulation studies under realistic settings show that the RMT-IF meaningfully and accurately quantifies the treatment effect and outperforms traditional tests on time to the first event in statistical efficiency thanks to its fuller utilization of patient data. The new methods are illustrated on a colon cancer trial with relapse and death as outcomes and a cardiovascular trial with recurrent hospitalizations and death as outcomes. The R-package rmt implements the proposed methodology and is publicly available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).
© 2021 The International Biometric Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  composite endpoints; generalized pairwise comparisons; multistate models; proportion in favor; recurrent event; restricted mean survival time

Year:  2021        PMID: 34562019      PMCID: PMC8948098          DOI: 10.1111/biom.13570

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  25 in total

1.  Causal inference on the difference of the restricted mean lifetime between two groups.

Authors:  P Y Chen; A A Tsiatis
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty?

Authors:  Nick Freemantle; Melanie Calvert; John Wood; Joanne Eastaugh; Carl Griffin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-05-21       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages.

Authors:  Q McNEMAR
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  1947-06       Impact factor: 2.500

4.  Time to move on from 'time-to-first': should all events be included in the analysis of clinical trials?

Authors:  Stefan D Anker; John J V McMurray
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-08-27       Impact factor: 29.983

5.  Event-specific win ratios and testing with terminal and non-terminal events.

Authors:  Song Yang; James Troendle
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma.

Authors:  C G Moertel; T R Fleming; J S Macdonald; D G Haller; J A Laurie; P J Goodman; J S Ungerleider; W A Emerson; D C Tormey; J H Glick
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1990-02-08       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Sample size formula for general win ratio analysis.

Authors:  Lu Mao; KyungMann Kim; Xinran Miao
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 1.701

8.  A class of proportional win-fractions regression models for composite outcomes.

Authors:  Lu Mao; Tuo Wang
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-10-10       Impact factor: 1.701

9.  Effect of High-Dose Trivalent vs Standard-Dose Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine on Mortality or Cardiopulmonary Hospitalization in Patients With High-risk Cardiovascular Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Orly Vardeny; KyungMann Kim; Jacob A Udell; Jacob Joseph; Akshay S Desai; Michael E Farkouh; Sheila M Hegde; Adrian F Hernandez; Allison McGeer; H Keipp Talbot; Inder Anand; Deepak L Bhatt; Christopher P Cannon; David DeMets; J Michael Gaziano; Shaun G Goodman; Kristin Nichol; Matthew C Tattersall; Jonathan L Temte; Janet Wittes; Clyde Yancy; Brian Claggett; Yi Chen; Lu Mao; Thomas C Havighurst; Lawton S Cooper; Scott D Solomon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 157.335

10.  Assessing the benefit-risk of new treatments using generalised pairwise comparisons: the case of erlotinib in pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  J Péron; P Roy; K Ding; W R Parulekar; L Roche; M Buyse
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  1 in total

1.  On recurrent-event win ratio.

Authors:  Lu Mao; KyungMann Kim; Yi Li
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.494

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.